Right to Information and Right to Know are important aspects of freedom of speech and expression and the internet is at present the greatest supplier of information, if not of knowledge. It facilitates Right to Information; hence it has been equated with fundamental rights. The telephone and the internet are means of expression because a person talking on the phone or communicating through the internet exercises his right to freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court did not examine whether access to the internet is a fundamental right as this issue was not raised by the petitioners. However, it was held that “Freedom of Speech and Expression through the medium of internet is an integral part of Article 19 (1)(a)” and the Supreme Court has thus formalised access to the internet as a part of fundamental rights and has held that the government cannot deprive citizens of any fundamental right, except under certain conditions. This ruling came during a hearing of a plea in connection with the internet blockade in J&K since August 5, 2019, after the revocation of Article 370. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right for all citizens under Article 19(1)(a). The latest expansion of this right makes this constitutional provision keep pace with innovation of technology in as much as the internet has become the primary source of information for millions of citizens. The State can make laws for imposing restrictions on the right to freedom of speech in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to offence. Section 144 of the CrPC authorises executive magistrates to take preventive steps for the prevention of breach of peace. These include ban on assembly of more than four persons, ban on processions, use of water cannon and even curfew and shoot-at-sight orders. It has to be seen whether such orders affect freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has said that prohibitory orders issued under Section 144, CrPC, cannot be used indefinitely to suppress freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of the press, as part of freedom of speech and expression, is a valuable and sacred right, hence magistrates, while passing prohibitory orders under Section 144, CrPC, should apply their mind and follow the doctrine of proportionality. Such orders cannot be used to quell dissent, and repetitive clamping of such orders may amount to abuse of powers. Such orders should be revoked if no longer required, in accordance with the preventive spirit of the law.
1. The government imposed an emergency in the state of Panjir due to compelling circumstances of militancy, anti-state and subversive activities and horrid instances of communal violence. A particular community X was being targeted. There were instances where the militants would track down the GPS location of members of X and go on a rampage attacking the community. Inflammatory messages were being circulated on WhatsApp against the community. One such message read that people belonging to X, should be shot at sight. The communal clashes worsened. Soon, the internet was completely suspended and Section 144 of CrPC was invoked to keep a check on such activities. The ban on the internet created a situation of misery among the heavily web-dependent population. People were not able to communicate to their family members residing outside the state. The media in such a state of suspension of the internet could not report live from the state. A public-spirited person filed a petition under Article 32 alleging that the internet ban was unreasonable and a violation of his fundamental right to expression.
(a) The internet ban is unconstitutional.
(b) The internet ban is justified as the government has imposed an emergency.
(c) The internet ban is justified in the wake of the compelling situation of the state.
(d) The ban should be lifted.
2. The government imposed an emergency in the state of Panjir due to compelling circumstances of militancy, anti-state and subversive activities and horrid instances of communal violence. A particular community was being targeted. Inflammatory messages were being circulated on WhatsApp against the community. The communal clashes worsened. Soon, the internet was completely suspended and Section 144 of CrPC was invoked to keep a check on such activities. The ban on the internet created a situation of misery among the heavily web-dependent population. People were not able to communicate to their family members residing outside the state. The media in such a state of suspension of the internet could not report live from the state. However, the emergency lasted for 6 months and normalcy was soon restored. The situation became peaceful. However, the state fearing that violence may flare up again continued the internet ban. A public-spirited person filed a petition under Article 32 alleging that the internet ban was unreasonable and a violation of his fundamental right to expression.
(a) The ban is no longer justified as normalcy has been restored.
(b) The ban is justified as there is a reasonable apprehension of relapse of violence in the state.
(c) The ban should be lifted as the emergency has been lifted.
(d) Both (a) and (c)
3. The Mandira Bedi government imposed an emergency in the country as a subterfuge to postpone the impending elections. They also invoked Section 144 of CrPC throughout the country. However, the Supreme Court exercising the power of judicial review suspended the order and lifted the emergency. Section 144 of CrPC was consequently revoked. However, some of the states continued the invocation of Section 144 because of the persistent tension in those state. Choose the best outcome:
(a) The decision of the state is unjustified as the Supreme Court has declared the emergency to be unconstitutional.
(b) The decision of the states to continue Section144 is justified due to the circumstances of prevailing in the states.
(c) The invocation should not be indefinite and should be lifted once the tensions ease.
(d) Both (b) and (c)
4. The Central Legislation passed a controversial bill on transgender rights. In the wake of the Transgender Act 2020, all transgenders united and issued strong condemnation for the same on social media. One such NGO, Taaz Foundation issues a statement on its social media page, calling upon all citizens to express their discontent in the form of a candlelight march on 25th February 2020 at India Gate. Fearing state wide protest, the govt invoked Section 144 in the National Capital. A petition was filed before the High Court of the state:
(a) The invocation Section 144 is justified as there can be reasonable apprehension of disruption of public order.
(b) The invocation of Section 144 is disproportional to the state of affairs.
(c) The invocation of Section144 can be removed after 25th February.
(d) None of the above.
5. The state of Modiana restricted certain websites stating them to be obscene and unpalatable to the taste of the modest public of the State. Consequently, such websites would be suspended and could only be accessed within a specific time slot. The state decision is:
(a) Arbitrary as it falls outside the scope of reasonable restrictions
(b) Justified on the grounds of reasonable restrictions
(c) Banning porn website is good for the taste of the modest Indians
(d) Violative of freedom of expression
1. Ans. (b) Option (b) is not the correct answer because the internet cannot be banned merely on the condition of a state-imposed emergency. This emergency very well could be arbitrary. However, the ban has to stand the test of proportionality as given in the passage. The ban is justified because the situation is compelling. The internet was being used as a mode of committing violence.
2. Ans. (a) The passage states that prohibitory measures shall not last indefinitely. It does not say that as soon as the emergency gets over the prohibitory measures can be lifted. One has to take note of the circumstances. In the present situation, peace was restored therefore the ban is no longer justified.
3. Ans. (d) Refer to the lines, “Section 144 of the CrPC authorises executive magistrates to take preventive steps for the prevention of breach of peace. … The Supreme Court has said that prohibitory orders issued under Section 144, CrPC, cannot be used indefinitely to suppress freedom of speech and expression.”
4. Ans. (b) Here, the Taaz Foundation is only asking for a solidarity statement and support. It can’t be reasonably held that such protests will have an effect on state security. Thus, option (b) is the right answer.
5. Ans. (b) The government has only regulated the website and prescribed a certain time slot. Moreover, according to the passage, the State can make laws for imposing restrictions on the grounds of decency or morality
